Chain Wrangler
Eagle Member
Played the new Mt. Lebanon course in Texas. DD said two meter rule. Darn cedars ate my disc every time. I hate that rule. Legs hate me from climbing those trees. Blah.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
taking away the 2 meter rule
- Thread starter MurderMike41370
- Start date
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Let's clarify the two options, both which can be applied by TDs right now without PDGA approval:
1. 2m penalty only within the 10m radius circle
2. Disc suspended above 2m (or any height?) and within the 10m radius circle gets marked on the 10m line or a drop zone marked 10m from the basket. (Maybe use a specific drop zone on holes where there's a drop off on one side of the green.)
Advantage of Option 2 is there's no argument whether the disc is 9.95m or 10.05m from the basket since the mark on the ground will essentially be the same either way with no penalty at stake. The way Option 2 is currently legal within the rules is the TD essentially specifies that the 20m diameter cylinder of space that starts 2m above the playing surface centered where the center of the basket contacts the ground is a casual relief area. A disc landing in this "casual relief cylinder" is marked either at a specific drop zone on that hole or the more generalized drop zone which is moving out to the 10m circle on the line of play back from the point on the playing surface directly under the disc.
1. 2m penalty only within the 10m radius circle
2. Disc suspended above 2m (or any height?) and within the 10m radius circle gets marked on the 10m line or a drop zone marked 10m from the basket. (Maybe use a specific drop zone on holes where there's a drop off on one side of the green.)
Advantage of Option 2 is there's no argument whether the disc is 9.95m or 10.05m from the basket since the mark on the ground will essentially be the same either way with no penalty at stake. The way Option 2 is currently legal within the rules is the TD essentially specifies that the 20m diameter cylinder of space that starts 2m above the playing surface centered where the center of the basket contacts the ground is a casual relief area. A disc landing in this "casual relief cylinder" is marked either at a specific drop zone on that hole or the more generalized drop zone which is moving out to the 10m circle on the line of play back from the point on the playing surface directly under the disc.
Witness the birth of a new Chuckism: The Casual Relief Cylinder.
Would that conflict with the rule that, unless the 2M rule is in effect, a disc that comes to rest above the playing surface is marked on the playing surface, directly below? Would you argue that the branches in the cylinder constitute a separate playing surface, which is designated casual relief?
You might be right but I'd hate to present that one at the player's meeting.
Would that conflict with the rule that, unless the 2M rule is in effect, a disc that comes to rest above the playing surface is marked on the playing surface, directly below? Would you argue that the branches in the cylinder constitute a separate playing surface, which is designated casual relief?
You might be right but I'd hate to present that one at the player's meeting.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Once a casual relief area is specified, its marking rules take precedence over any other marking rules. Most casual relief areas are actually volumes just like like this proposed cylinder. Think about casual water where a disc can be floating over the true playing surface at the bottom of the water but it can be marked on the edge or at a drop zone.
It's a pretty easy announcement at the player meeting and doesn't involve cylinders. "Any disc more than 2m above the ground inside the 10m circle around each basket is first marked on the ground per the rules then the mark is moved out to the 10m circle with no penalty."
It's a pretty easy announcement at the player meeting and doesn't involve cylinders. "Any disc more than 2m above the ground inside the 10m circle around each basket is first marked on the ground per the rules then the mark is moved out to the 10m circle with no penalty."
Last edited:
I like this, Chuck.
I still don't like it. We will need 2 m. measuring tapes. And I don't like that a shot hanging 1.99 m. above the ground next to the basket is a drop in, while 2.01 m is 10 m. away.
I'm arguing this purely from a theoretical and principal standpoint.
I'm arguing this purely from a theoretical and principal standpoint.
This just allows players to throw into trees and have a safe putt, either the disc comes out of the tree and you have a close shot or you have a 10m shot that you should have a good chance making. I still feel the player must navigate all trees and other obstacles on the course in a way that allows them to avoid the chances of these situations happening.
I still feel your trying to change the rules to allow for a higher percentage of shots doing what you want and not understanding that no shot on the golf course has a 100% chance. There is always a risk of a shot landing at an unplayable height and that risk management lies on the player.
I still feel your trying to change the rules to allow for a higher percentage of shots doing what you want and not understanding that no shot on the golf course has a 100% chance. There is always a risk of a shot landing at an unplayable height and that risk management lies on the player.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
BENFTS, no one has explained why throwing thru foliage from the top should be penalized any more than throwing horizontally right thru it? Shots from all directions can kick off of and stick in foliage. A line drive 4 feet off the ground macks off a tree to the left and sticks into a bush one foot off the ground. A shot over the top pinballs down and wedges into a branch at 10 feet off the ground. There's no valid reason to penalize a shot from any direction more than another. None. You want to make throwing from certain directions potentially more risky than others, you do it by design not by fluky penalties.
JoakimBL - First, you should carry a measuring tape for at least 1 meter anyway and those usually can handle 2 meters. In fact before the 2m rule was optional, players had to carry a way to measure 2m. Second, you don't have to specify exactly 2m for this casual relief option. You can make it 1 meter or even "not touching the ground" if you want to be particularly punitive in terms of making players back off to the 10m circle. Might be a way to make approaching and putting a little more challenging without even modifying the basket or objects on the green.
JoakimBL - First, you should carry a measuring tape for at least 1 meter anyway and those usually can handle 2 meters. In fact before the 2m rule was optional, players had to carry a way to measure 2m. Second, you don't have to specify exactly 2m for this casual relief option. You can make it 1 meter or even "not touching the ground" if you want to be particularly punitive in terms of making players back off to the 10m circle. Might be a way to make approaching and putting a little more challenging without even modifying the basket or objects on the green.
Last edited:
GT Chris
Birdie Member
The two meter rule was originally implemented so that players couldn't simply aim for a tree near the basket and be rewarded with a drop in putt? That makes sense, as it punishes players for intentionally aiming to have their shot blocked by a tree.
That's fine, but there are large swaths of courses where a player is never tempted to do that. In those cases, the two meter rule is no longer serving its intended purpose, so why keep it around?
That's fine, but there are large swaths of courses where a player is never tempted to do that. In those cases, the two meter rule is no longer serving its intended purpose, so why keep it around?
If a disc is stuck in a tree are you subject to the 30 seconds to take your shot rule or can two minutes be called?
should be just like Nikko said in the one NSDG vlog...you have 3 minutes (or however long it is you get to look for a disc before it is declared lost) and if you don't get it down by then you have to play it with a stroke penalty
There's only risk management if you have a tree with a pretty high percentage of catching discs (over 2 meters high).
For it to work, you have to have a hole where:
(1) Throwing into the tree gives you a significantly better chance of an easy putt than approaching over or around the tree.
(2) The tree's percentage of catching discs (over 2 meters) is greater than the differential between the two throws.
For example, if you have a hole where 90% of throws into tree result in an easy putt, but 70% of other throws result in an easy putt, then in the absence of a 2-meter rule, throwing into the trees is the best option.
If the tree catches 20% of discs thrown into it, then it's a wash. If the tree catches more than 20%, then there's a risk/reward determination by the player as to whether to risk the 2-meter penalty.
Otherwise, the best route is still into the tree, and the 2-meter penalty is a random penalty not affecting the player's decision.
---Are there really holes like this? Many of them?
---Are there really trees over baskets that catch 30% or more of discs thrown in them? Many of them?
If so, it's regional. At least, I've never encountered it. I've rarely even seen a tree that catches 1% of discs thrown into it, so the possibilty of a 2-meter rule affecting the player's risk/reward decision is nil.
I'm saying manage risk on all shots not just the ones where the 2m rule can play a part. Fluky penalty? I guess I just see this as part of the game and I have to play around it, changing the rule or just not using it is cheep.
Step up and hit shots, if you miss and you and your shot ends up in a tree you had the choice to not throw that line, you chose to throw it and accepted the possibility of that outcome.
Step up and hit shots, if you miss and you and your shot ends up in a tree you had the choice to not throw that line, you chose to throw it and accepted the possibility of that outcome.
We have a saying for people that complain that 2m penalties are unfair.
"Stop throwing in the trees, Nancy."
zenbot<-----impresses himself with rock solid debate skillz
"Stop throwing in the trees, Nancy."
zenbot<-----impresses himself with rock solid debate skillz
The argument for the two meter rule aparently is you should not be able to take any shot above 2 meters if there is a risk to hit a tree. Then why not just make a blanket penalty for hitting any obstacle, not just for the fluky instances when the disc doens't fall down? Get a bad kick off the tee? Bad luck. And a stroke. Don't aim a trees.
I really don't get why hitting a branch of a guardian tree should be much more risky than hitting the trunk of it. If you really, really want to force players to take a specific route to the basket, just line the fairway with tripple mandos.
To me it sounds more like the 2 m. rule is a quick fix for design problems on some bakset placements. Why I don't agree with the points made for it, I understand the tradition and the fact that some courses a designed with this rule in mind. The only alternative I like besides doing away with the rule altogether, is making it only applicable inside the circle. dropzones and moving the disc etc. makes it to complicated in my opinion.
I really don't get why hitting a branch of a guardian tree should be much more risky than hitting the trunk of it. If you really, really want to force players to take a specific route to the basket, just line the fairway with tripple mandos.
To me it sounds more like the 2 m. rule is a quick fix for design problems on some bakset placements. Why I don't agree with the points made for it, I understand the tradition and the fact that some courses a designed with this rule in mind. The only alternative I like besides doing away with the rule altogether, is making it only applicable inside the circle. dropzones and moving the disc etc. makes it to complicated in my opinion.
Why not, like now, make it applicable where appropriate? That is, where the TD or course designer designate?
The same as O.B. They designate certain areas O.B., which may vary from hole to hole. They designate certain mandos. Why not 2-meter hazards?
There can be places outside the 10-meter circle where it's appropriate.
But you're not managing risk if the risk is so flukey that it's not part of your decision.
Hitting the tree is the risk you manage. You choose your route, take your risk, execute your shot, based on whether you might hit the tree and how it will impact your result. The 1% (or less) chance you'll also get a penalty stroke doesn't change your decision, so it's not risk management.
As long as the TD or course designer does not have allowance to make it a blanket rule for the entire course, I guess it's ok. However, either way itøs implemented, it's still fluky as you say yourself, and that is my main objection against the rule.
There is nothing fluky about the penalty. Throw the shot that you want if you get stuck in a tree than you shouldn't have hit it, plain and simple. You can make any argument for changing the rule but the fact remains that if a 1% risk is present you have accepted that, if you want to avoid that then throw a different shot and stop whining.
I don't understand why they want to change the rule -- as I understand it now, it's up to the TD whether the rule is in effect or not. I've played in very few tournaments, but none have ever used the 2m rule. In fact, the TD usually announced "As usual, the 2 meter rule (chuckle chuckle) is not in effect today."
Leave it the way it is, and let the TDs justify using the rule if they want to.
Leave it the way it is, and let the TDs justify using the rule if they want to.
